2003 XR400 vs 2003 WR250F

5-10 weekends a YEAR?? you do know there is 52 weeks in a year, right?

anyway, for your stats the 250f might be a great contender, with its higher seat hight, lower weight, and the electric start/kick start with auto decompression is a big convenience there too. it sucks you can't ride either, but i suppose you can at least SIT on one in the showroom?

happy hunting, and hope you make a good choice!

-Rob

Hi Rocky welcome back to the fold! A lot has changed in this (the dirt world) in the past 25 years. I was an avid rider/racer back (and am today) then so I get to speak from experience. I remember the days of yesteryear when whooped out trails were non existent (yes folks this really was the case) and you could take a bike with the standard 4" of travel suspention and have a blast. Rocky those days are gone FOREVER (at least here in Mi). What we have now is a "trail system" that requires us to "stay on the trail or suffer the consequenses". This, in turn, has pushed ALL of us woods/trail rippers (using your own words) into a realitively small environment which in turn suffers the consequences (whoops, sand, treachourus high speed two way traffic andthe like).
I tell you all this for one reason - it supports my response to your main question. Honda has chosen to leave the XR400 virtually unchanged since conception. Compared to the Yam, it is a heavy/cumbersome/WAY under suspended trail bike that really should not be listed in the same category as the Yam WR/YZF! Yamaha on the other hand has continued to update their WR (in my opinion this shows continued seriousness on there part) to make it a very competitive machine without losing the "trail riding" side.
When you say "rip" I interpret that as "rip". As in, "hey Joe - watch me rip up that set of whoops in the trail". Is this correct?? If so, I promise you that you will not "rip" on an XR - you will "anti-rip" at the first good section of whoops that you come to - GUARENTEED! Even if you do attempt that "rip" the XR will "attempt" to throw you off its back into on coming traffic (a real possibility). Again, HONDA has NOT done the followup and equiped the XR400 to accomplish this! Yamaha has!
I have owned and ridden BOTH and I am telling you the way it REALLY is!
I will leave the rest of your question for others (maintenance, LC vrs AIR cooling, resale values and the like) but I will finish with this thought. The Honda XR was a GREAT trail bike in its day, but current Michigan trail conditions really limit its "fun for dollar" value compared to other even GREATER machines out there (Yamaha, KTM, Kawasaki, Gas Gas, VOR ect.) like the mighty CRF450!
Doggonit, I thought I could get thru one of these disortations without mentioning my Christmas dream.........
Woodsy

i really don't have experience with either, so i can't give you my opinions on the reliability issue, but both will have their pluses and minuses. i have HEARD (not know :confused: ) that hondas will last forever, but it really comes down to what YOU want.

-Rob

April 2000 DirtBike Mag lists WR250F horsepower at 31.4 and XR 400 at 30.1. One more horse and 30 lbs lighter with electric start, leans towards WR250F

rockclimber -

everything woodsy said is true. the problem is that it doesn't matter. when anyone says "rip" i think of the two fastest guys i know. both of them ride XR400's.

if you want bullet proof reliability, excellent resale, low-low-low maintainence(sp), and a bike that you will be able to pass on to the next generation (literally), go with the XR.

do you know how the WR generates so much horse power from a much smaller engine? it revs a hell of a lot faster! typically, faster reving engines wear faster and require much more maintainance than slow reving engines.

and as far as power goes, the XR can be significantly un-corked without loosing a lot in the way of reliability. so that 30 horsepower is much closer to the engines floor than to its ceiling.

also, riding 5-10 times per year will pretty well keep you from "ripping" by any objective standard. the mellow (but substantial) power delivery of the XR will suit this schedule much better than a race bred WR.

are the heavier? yes. are they "slower"? no, not really. and i guarantee that the XR will be far less resentfull of the 5-10 rides a year you anticipate putting on the bike.


just some thoughts


jeremiah

low maintainence, reliability,= xr. engine reliability suffers with mods, left stock there bulletproof

For the casual rider that doesn't want to work on the bike-XR400 or 250-no question. The XR can be very fast in the woods with an experienced rider and suspension mods.

I'm 39, 6'3", 275 lbs, and I recently bought a street-licensed 1997 XR400 (w/440cc kit). Fantastic bike! All I had to do is replace the shock/fork springs for my weight. The bike kick-starts so easily, I don't mind not having electric start. (Although, there's an ad in Cycle News for XR400 electric start kits!)

I looked very closely at Suzuki's DRZ400 (now also available as Kawasaki's KLX400). The DRZ400S gives you a great dual-purpose bike, with electric starting. The DRZ400E is dirt-only, with electric starting. (You can always add a Baja kit to make it street legal.)

I mention street licensing because it's great when finding and exploring new trails. If I have to cross streets or highways, I don't have to fear an expensive ticket. It also lets me join organized dual-sport rides.

My opinion is go with the Yamaha.

You may end up riding more than 5-10 times a year and you may want to go faster than you expected. The WR comes setup pretty good and has more potential for upgrading if/when you need it.

I'm 32 and not in such great physical condition (but I'm not real bad off either). I started back a year and a half ago after a ten year break with an XR650l thinking I wanted to casually cruise the trails once in a while but mostly ride the road. WRONG, that lasted about a month. Got to the ORV riding areas and definitely needed an off road bike so I got the XR400 thinking I'd be content on it doing smallish jumps and moderate trail riding. Well I absolutely trashed that bike on the trails...it is NOT for serious riding (and I wasn't even a serious rider at that point). The suspension is too soft, the frame flexes and bends, the forks flex, it is too heavy, and Woodsy is right - the whoops will eat the XR up and spit you out into the trees (even with my suspension mods). It did start and run without a hitch all of the time and the motor is pretty strong down low, but that is it. Luckily, I took my XR400 to the track one day and decided real quick that I needed an MX bike. SO the XR400 lasted about three months. I now prefer my CR250 (2000) on the trails to the XR400 without a doubt and have been quite content with it for the past year. It is amazing what a stiff frame and good suspension will do for you even on trails. The handling is better by far and I think you'll get the same benefit from going with the WR.

I've ridden Truespode's YZ250f and even thought about it getting it for trails. Had as much power as the XR400 overall but the 400 has a low end torque motor, the YZF is more of a rev motor (I assume the WR is much the same). The YZF felt better to me, more narrow, firmer seat, better suspension, lighter of course. The only thing that deterred me from buying it (and he was selling it cheap) is because I had gotten used to the extra CR250 power although I know I'd probably be able to ride the YZF/WRFs much more aggressively in the woods.

Good Luck!

Good report James! Your history of the Xr sounds all to familar. Isnt it fun to be able to attack whoops and come out feeling like you won? I REALLY like the option of doubling them at a blip of the throttle - it makes me look forward to whoops - now when I see a big long series of them coming up I SMILE and gain ground on my riding group instead of watching those MX ridin yoyo's leave me behind (I hated my XR for that!).
Woodsy